Madras High Court
T.R.S.Vijayraj vs The Commissioner on 8 March, 2011
Author: G.M.Akbar Ali
Bench: G.M.Akbar Ali
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/03/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9342 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 1.T.R.S.Vijayraj 2.T.R.S.Babu 3.T.R.S.Karthikayen 4.Sri Ramalinga Roller Flour Mills 3/315, T.R.S.Nagar, Melakandamangalam, Aruppukottai 626 101. ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Sivakasi Local Health Authority, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi. 2.The Food Inspector, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi. 3.Damotharan 4.Vinayagamoorthy 5.K.Padmavathi ... Respondents PRAYER The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.135 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar ^For Respondents... Mrs.Devasena Public Prosecutor For R1 and R2 Mr.G.Vasudevan for R3 to R5 :ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.135 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagasi.
2.The petitioners 1 to 3 are the managing partners of one Sri Ramalinga Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd, Aruppukottai. They are the manufacturer of the product namely, "Super Quality Ramalinga Resultant Atta" a wheat Flour of 500 gms., packet. On 29.08.2007 around 3.00 p.m. the complainant/Food Inspector, Sivagasi Municipality inspected one Sarojini Super Market at Sivagasi and seized the above said food products under magazor and the same has been forwarded for chemical analysis. The said product was seized on 29.08.2007 and the analysis report was given on 28.09.2007 and only on 12.05.2010 a notice has been sent to the petitioners, stating that the said produced is found to be adulterated. Pursuant to the analysis report, the Food Inspector has filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, under the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as "the Act"), who was taken the same on file in C.C.No.135 of 2010.
3.Aggrieved for taking cognizance, the petitioners, who are the manufacturers, are before this Court to quash the proceedings.
4.Mr.P.Santhoshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice was issued to the petitioners after three years of the analysis report and by that time, the said food item has spoiled and the valuable right of the petitioners are deprived for re-analyisation. The learned counsel pointed out that in the packet of the said food item, it was clearly mentioned by the manufacturer as "best before use 45 days" and therefore, no purpose would be served even if the petitioner has expressed his willingness for reanalysis after 3 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2009(1) MLJ (Crl.) 843 (Bhushan Prasad, Manager - Quality and Regulatory Operations of the General Mills India Private Ltd., Mumbai and another Vs. K.Ravichander).
5.Per contra, Mrs.Devasena, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit the petitioners are found to be storing expired products and as on 28.09.2007 the said product has expired. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that however, the analysis report would show that it is adulterated and on receipt of the notice dated 12.05.2010, the petitioners have not expressed their willingness and hence, the benefit of re-analysis has not be granted to the petitioners.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).
7.Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act reads as follows:
"13 Report of Public Analyst (2)On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-
section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forwarded, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
13(3) The Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food laboratory under sub-section 2(B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section(1)."
8.Under Section 13(2) and 13(3), the petitioners are entitled to re- analysis the product with the Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analysist. Therefore, it is mandate on the part of the Food Inspector to forward the copy of the Analysis Report to the petitioners/accused concerned and to inform such persons that they may make an application before the Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of the report. On receipt of such notice, the accused has to express his willingness within 10 days and on receipt of such notice, it is mandate on the part of the prosecuting authority to produce the sample before the Court and request the Court to send the sample for re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.
9.In the present case, the sample was taken on 29.08.2007 and it was analysed on 10.09.2007 and the analysis report was sent to the authority on 20.09.2007. Inspite of receiving the report only on 20.09.2007, the authorities have chosen to issue a notice on 12.05.2010, i.e., 3 years after the date of receipt of the report and by that time, the life of the product has expired.
10.In the judgment reported in 2009(1) MLJ (Crl.) 843, (cited supra) this Court has held as follows:
""15.Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to send the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory as the sample itself was execution and therefore, the accused has been deprived of his indefeasible and valuable right to get the sample analysed to the Central Food Laboratory which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice vitiating the entire proceedings."
11.Following the said judgment 2009(1) MLJ (Crl.) 843, (cited supra), I am of the considered view that the petitioners are deprived of right for re- analysis and on that event, the proceedings in C.C.No.135 of 2010 is quashed and the petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.
nbj To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.
1.The Commissioner, Sivakasi Local Health Authority, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi.
2.The Food Inspector, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi.